Has the defense created reasonable doubt?

Sleuth5

New Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2008
Messages
5,832
Reaction score
0
If the jury believes that Kronk poked at the skull & it fell out of the bag & no duct tape, there goes the states case.

If one juror believes Kronk put the duct tape there, it's over. Sadly I say this, as I know in my heart she is 100% guilty of murder without any remorse, Caylee was in her way of her freedom! Her parents were on her to stay home & take care of her, but SHE wanted to be a party girl!!

If a juror is foolish enough to believe something like that, in the absence of any empirical evidence to support the claim, then they will find something else no matter what the State presented. In other words, if they're that willing to suspend credulity, the State could never present enough evidence to convict ICA.

However, that person would not have a reasonable doubt. That would be a fanciful doubt at best. To leap to the conclusion that Roy Kronk put duct tape on that skull (for what reason?), and that he happened to use exactly the kind of tape found in the Anthony home, but no longer available in stores (where did he get it?), just because he said he prodded the skull with his meter reading stick, is simply absurd.

:cow:
 

kaki

New Member
Joined
Sep 6, 2008
Messages
848
Reaction score
1
I agree. It's not so much that the defense created reasonable doubt, it's did the prosecution prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt? I too think they did a great job but without knowing how Caylee died it leaves unanswered questions which can cause doubt.

Everyone keeps saying this but I don't see how you can prove exactly how someone is killed when finding the body skeletonized ... or not finding a body at all. That might make potential murderers think they can always get away with murder as long as the body isn't found in such a state to give any clues as to cause of death.

On another thought..I have always thought ICA was guilty but I did have some lingering doubts whether it was an accident or premeditated murder. I believe the defense actually convinced me more that it was premeditated and that she is a stone cold sociopath. Just watching her and JB throwing her father under the bus like that .. she just seemed so cold and uncaring.. i became more and more convinced she is a sociopath and could kill Caylee and go about her life like nothing happened. I didn't expect to see such evil from her.. just sitting in court.
 

BlOnDe_GuRrL

New Member
Joined
Dec 10, 2008
Messages
952
Reaction score
0
I still have the same opinion.. The only "reasonable doubt" is that I reasonably doubt there is any truth in Casey's defense
 

shadowraiths

LISK Liaison, Verified Forensic Psychology Special
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Feb 16, 2006
Messages
2,876
Reaction score
137
Website
crimsonshadows.net
I did have a visceral reaction to KC yesterday, however.
I really have not been following this case, so have been playing catch up. I did watch GA's testimony, that also captured footage of KC when he broke down. I've long felt bad for the man. As for KC? I admittedly did not have the same reaction that you experienced.
I also don't make much of these reports from friends. The test of a "loving mother" is how she behaves when no one is watching.
Well, yes and no. Bowlby and Ainsworth's attachment theory of development has become widely accepted in the psychology community. And attachment issues invariably reveal "tells." In this case, outside of the single father's day video, I saw no notable behavioral "tells." Which, in turn, and imho, is arguably consistent with the reported bonded relationship between KC and her daughter. And which admittedly still leaves me perplexed wrt what really happened.

I agree, but in fairness, stupid defense theories are no more evidence than the affect of a defendant when not on the stand.
So true.

You and I would both have some things to set aside if we were deliberating. :)
True again. :)
 

Chilly Willy

New Member
Joined
Dec 10, 2007
Messages
7,762
Reaction score
3
I still have the same opinion.. The only "reasonable doubt" is that I reasonably doubt there is any truth in Casey's defense

I failed to see a defense, I only saw the DT attempting to destroy the defendant's father who was already in tremendous pain. It makes me dislike the defendant even more than before and makes me want to see her locked up for the rest of her life.
 

clayangel

Member
Joined
Nov 26, 2007
Messages
49
Reaction score
2
Yes I do think the defense has given me reasonable doubt. But mostly I feel the prosecution did not show me conclusively that this was in any way premeditated via chloroform nor duct tape.

I dont trust the program on the computer saying that that site was accessed 84 times. I feel like it could have been just as easily a cumulative count of all the sites visited. Myspace, 83... the how to make chloroform being 84 then the next site 85 etc.

I believe with all the poking and rolling out of the bag Etc... I hate to write that. but the duct tape could have just as easily been applied after death.

I do believe Casey had something to do with Caylee's death it could just as easily been an accident / neglect. Manslaughter. LWOP
 

Benchwarmer

New Member
Joined
Jun 28, 2011
Messages
117
Reaction score
0
Did prosecution prove murder? Yes IMO

Did defense deliver on opening statement? No IMO (Jose Baez must think just because he asked a witness the question it makes it fact)

Could a reasonable person find her guilty? Yes IMO
 

clayangel

Member
Joined
Nov 26, 2007
Messages
49
Reaction score
2
Yes I do think the defense has given me reasonable doubt. But mostly I feel the prosecution did not show me conclusively that this was in any way premeditated via chloroform nor duct tape.

I dont trust the program on the computer saying that that site was accessed 84 times. I feel like it could have been just as easily a cumulative count of all the sites visited. Myspace, 83... the how to make chloroform being 84 then the next site 85 etc.

I believe with all the poking and rolling out of the bag Etc... I hate to write that. but the duct tape could have just as easily been applied after death.

I do believe Casey had something to do with Caylee's death it could just as easily been an accident / neglect. Manslaughter. LWOP

Sorry to quote myself but I meant to add that with all the grandstanding and stupid stories that the defense added does make me wonder why. If it were just a simple accident why didnt the defense just say so instead of the drama.
 

GeekyGirl

I rock at Trivial Pursuit, just don't ask me where
Joined
Aug 12, 2010
Messages
714
Reaction score
1
It would never cross my mind to call you any such thing!

On the contrary, I very much respect your level headed approach to this case.

I too think it's a no-brainer that KC was somehow responsible (even if only through negligence) for Caylee's death.

But without a cause of death, I'm not sure I can know which of the charges would apply.

And, in theory, the jury has to agree on a charge as it is specifically defined. It isn't supposed to be good enough to say, "Well, she did something, so we'll give her manslaughter unless the State can prove a higher charge."


You're absolutely right, but murder and manslaughter are all charges that build on each other. Below is the first part of the florida statute for manslaughter (with link).

Manslaughter:
1.The killing of a human being by the act, procurement, or culpable negligence of another, without lawful justification according to the provisions of chapter 776 and in cases in which such killing shall not be excusable homicide or murder, according to the provisions of this chapter, is manslaughter, a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.

http://www.flsenate.gov/laws/statutes/2010/782.07


If the jury feels that Caylee was in Casey's care when she died, that her death was the result of something Casey did or a failure to act on Casey's part, and that the evidence doesn't meet the legal standard for murder BARD, then I think manslaughter might be the correct charge. Of course, I'm not a legal expert, so I could be totally wrong. Just my thoughts on it.
 

LongtimeMedic

Former Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2011
Messages
382
Reaction score
0
Here's a very interesting read for those in quest of deeper understanding and enhancing their knowledge base. I found it quite apropos considering the DT rested today.

I found this particularly interesting:

"Thogmartin said the charged emotions inevitably triggered by a child's death add another layer of complexity. Forensic pathologists, in his view, can get "caught up in the anger, the emotion, the despair." Their mindset can become prosecutorial, Thogmartin said, until every child death is a "homicide until proven otherwise."

http://www.npr.org/2011/06/28/137454415/the-child-cases-guilty-until-proven-innocent
 

LongtimeMedic

Former Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2011
Messages
382
Reaction score
0
Oh... and IMHO, the Defense not only created reasonable doubt, but I am still of the firm belief that the SAO didn't prove their case in their CIC... no how/when/where/why/with whom/by whom at all from the SAO in regards to Caylee's "Homicide"... they merely presented a picture, that if you turn it upside down is still a picture... just a different one. moo
 

Who_What_When

Trying to keep an open mind...
Joined
Jan 2, 2009
Messages
550
Reaction score
0
Everyone keeps saying this but I don't see how you can prove exactly how someone is killed when finding the body skeletonized ... or not finding a body at all. That might make potential murderers think they can always get away with murder as long as the body isn't found in such a state to give any clues as to cause of death.

On another thought..I have always thought ICA was guilty but I did have some lingering doubts whether it was an accident or premeditated murder. I believe the defense actually convinced me more that it was premeditated and that she is a stone cold sociopath. Just watching her and JB throwing her father under the bus like that .. she just seemed so cold and uncaring.. i became more and more convinced she is a sociopath and could kill Caylee and go about her life like nothing happened. I didn't expect to see such evil from her.. just sitting in court.

Don't get me wrong, I think that Casey and Casey alone is responsible for Caylee's death and I agree with you regarding her actions. The way she has thrown her family under the bus makes me sick and I just hope the jury see her for what she is.

As far as why people are saying they need proof to how she died, I think people are saying this is because of what the jury has to base their decision on. They can't just feel or think that she murdered her, it has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt which makes it hard if you don't know how she died.

To prove the crime of First Degree Felony Murder, the State must prove the following three elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

1. The Victim is dead (Give 2a, 2b, or 2c as applicable)

a. The death occurred as a consequence of and while defendant was engaged in the commission of crime alleged.
b. The death occurred as a consequence of and while defendant was attempting to commit crime alleged.
c. The death occurred as a consequence of and while defendant, or an accomplice, was escaping from the immediate scene of crime alleged.

Give 3a if defendant actual perpetrator.

3. a. Defendant was the person who actually killed the victim.

With that, unless all of the jurors believe beyond a reasonable doubt that the duct tape or chloroform was used then I don't see how they can convict her of Murder 1.
 

SongBird

New Member
Joined
Oct 7, 2008
Messages
82
Reaction score
0
the facts don't match for the Defense...so I would say no...I believe we all felt that in his opening statement...it didn't sound plausible...I think than ...we all waited for that moment when the bunny was to magically appear out of his hat...problem was...he didn't sport a hat...JMHO
 

diva3rita

New Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2009
Messages
11
Reaction score
0
It hurts me to say this but for me, George's mistress has created reasonable doubt. At this point the entire family has lied (including George Anthony about his affair) and the only person that I found credible was the mistress (don't like her morals though). This now makes me think that perhaps George has been lying all along & that he did help Casey with covering up the accident. In the beginning of the trial I was VERY convinced that Casey was guilty of premeditated murder. Now, the only thing I'm convinced of is that the entire family is full of NUTCASES!! If they were able to create reasonable doubt in my mind, it's very likely that they were able to create reasonable doubt in at least one of the jurors minds. I'm not a happy camper guys because I'm not a person who's easily swayed.
 

gamom

New Member
Joined
Dec 27, 2008
Messages
998
Reaction score
0
I think the defense did a good job of giving doubt that Caylee was murdered. However, they failed to give any doubt that KC and KC alone was the person that put her in the trunk and tossed her like trash. The question will come down to which jurors beleive the tape was over her mouth. If they feel the tap was on her mouth, they will convict her of murder, if they are not sure, they will convict her of a lesser offense. IMO, the state needs to hammer home that tape was on her mouth. Enough with the smell, I dont think anyone doubts there was a dead body in KC's trunk.
 

GeekyGirl

I rock at Trivial Pursuit, just don't ask me where
Joined
Aug 12, 2010
Messages
714
Reaction score
1
Here's a very interesting read for those in quest of deeper understanding and enhancing their knowledge base. I found it quite apropos considering the DT rested today.

I found this particularly interesting:

"Thogmartin said the charged emotions inevitably triggered by a child's death add another layer of complexity. Forensic pathologists, in his view, can get "caught up in the anger, the emotion, the despair." Their mindset can become prosecutorial, Thogmartin said, until every child death is a "homicide until proven otherwise."

http://www.npr.org/2011/06/28/137454415/the-child-cases-guilty-until-proven-innocent

Thanks for this... I've read similar stories, and it never fails to amaze me just how wrong we can be when we start with a conclusion and work backwards. When doing any sort of patient care, especially when it involves children, it can be so hard to step back and be objective. Truly, the emotions can be overwhelming. Humans (well, most of us) possess such a deep rooted instinct to protect children but sometimes it can lead even the most well intentioned people astray in the the search for the truth.

Although the cases highlighted bear very little resemblance to the case at hand, it reminds me why I dislike the phrase "Common sense says they did it".
 

Jstc4caylee

New Member
Joined
Jun 9, 2011
Messages
361
Reaction score
0
It hurts me to say this but for me, George's mistress has created reasonable doubt. At this point the entire family has lied (including George Anthony about his affair) and the only person that I found credible was the mistress (don't like her morals though). This now makes me think that perhaps George has been lying all along & that he did help Casey with covering up the accident. In the beginning of the trial I was VERY convinced that Casey was guilty of premeditated murder. Now, the only thing I'm convinced of is that the entire family is full of NUTCASES!! If they were able to create reasonable doubt in my mind, it's very likely that they were able to create reasonable doubt in at least one of the jurors minds. I'm not a happy camper guys because I'm not a person who's easily swayed.

I agree some. But out of all the liars, I believe Casey the least.
 

LongtimeMedic

Former Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2011
Messages
382
Reaction score
0
You folks still realize that in surrebuttal, the DT can call DR G. back (if the State even cracks the door open a tad re Kronk or forensics) and point blank ask her if their were scratches in the "right eye socket" where Roy says he stuck his metal meter reading stick in, and also if the bag appeared to have ever been "lifted" four feet off the ground prior to the scene being processed, which no one from the ME's office, the SAO, OCSO or the FBI state was what they found.

If the State does open that door in rebuttal, all of the SAO's scene forensics swirl down the drain, as all the evidence can hence be considered tainted or products of tampering. The very last words the SAO probably wanted to ever hear in this case was RK describing how he picked up the bag and poked a stick in the skull. Any rational juror will connect those dots... they're too close together not to.
 
Top